Cruel or the Circle of Life?

@saab,

is that a requirement to detect problems?
Must I be a chef to detect when I get some bad soup?

Don't worry, youll live it down (or they will fire the director)

Ive been to Copenhagen only twice but Ive never been to the zoo. However, a zoo is not a unique site now is it? Would you visit US zoo if you visited us? We don't have any animals that most other world zoos don't also have.
Now a GAME PARK , like weve got in TExas or Florida. They are worth seeing (in a rental car)

0 Replies

@saab,

saab wrote:

I take for granted you have visited the Copenhagen Zoo and have seen how the area is and how the animals behave, if they look healthy and if they are taken good care of.
I am also sure you know all the rules and regulations according to EAZA and Danish laws about animal cruelty.

What in the world would a knowledge of the regulations regarding animal cruelty have to do with a personal sense of good and evil? Am I supposed to check out the regs before I feel sympathy for the creature?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon: a personal sense of good and evil?

That's a hoot, B, that an amoral dickhead like you would be talking about being able to discern good and evil.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Brandon: a personal sense of good and evil?

That's a hoot, B, that an amoral dickhead like you would be talking about being able to discern good and evil.

Name calling is the lowest form of debate. You like to use name calling as a form of "argument" because you don't like having to provide evidence that anything you say is true. You like to swoop in, make a few false claims, and glide out before you have to actually support anything you've said.

Here's the demonstration that this is a true charge. Provide evidence that I'm an "ammoral dickhead." Define what you mean and then give some evidence that it's true.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You are an Amoral dickhead, not an ammoral dickhead.
----------
For all the talk of bringing "civilization" to the Philippines, American commanders responded to the Filipino insurgency with the utmost brutality. Over the course of the next decade, and especially in the first few years of the conflict, it became commonplace for entire villages to be burned and whole populations to be imprisoned in concentration camps. No mercy was accorded to Filipino prisoner, a large number of whom were shot. This certainly was not in keeping with the spirit of "benevolent assimilation" proclaimed by President McKinley.

See, The Rape of the Philippines

http://able2know.org/topic/234422-1

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You are an Amoral dickhead, not an ammoral dickhead.
----------
For all the talk of bringing "civilization" to the Philippines, American commanders responded to the Filipino insurgency with the utmost brutality. Over the course of the next decade, and especially in the first few years of the conflict, it became commonplace for entire villages to be burned and whole populations to be imprisoned in concentration camps. No mercy was accorded to Filipino prisoner, a large number of whom were shot. This certainly was not in keeping with the spirit of "benevolent assimilation" proclaimed by President McKinley.

See, The Rape of the Philippines

http://able2know.org/topic/234422-1

How would this prove that I am an amoral dickhead?

1. First of all, you haven't defined "dickhead." I can see why you like it since it has no specific meaning and you can use it with no evidence. To prove that I am a dickhead, you would first have to give it a specific meaning and then demonstrate that it's true of me. The fact is that it's just childish name calling and unworthy of being used in a debate.

2. Secondly, to prove that I am amoral, you have to show that I have no sense of right and wrong. You would really have to have personal knowledge of me to do this, but you haven't even attempted to use my words on the forum to back up this claim.

3. I have nothing to do with the suppression of insurgency in the Philippines. How does some American policy from over a century ago prove that I personally have no morals and am a (still undefined) dickhead?

Try again or admit that it was a frivolous charge.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The indiscriminate use of bombs by the US, usually outside a declared war
situation, for wanton destruction, for no military objectives, whose
targets and victims are civilian populations, or what we now call
"collateral damage."

Japan (1945)
China (1945-46)
Korea & China (1950-53)
Guatemala (1954, 1960, 1967-69)
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959-61)
Congo (1964)
Peru (1965)
Laos (1964-70)
Vietnam (1961-1973)
Cambodia (1969-70)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983-84)
Libya (1986)
El Salvador (1980s)
Nicaragua (1980s)
Iran (1987)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991-2000)
Kuwait (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994-95)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998)
Pakistan (1998)
Yugoslavia (1999)
Bulgaria (1999)
Macedonia (1999)

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The indiscriminate use of bombs by the US, usually outside a declared war
situation, for wanton destruction, for no military objectives, whose
targets and victims are civilian populations, or what we now call
"collateral damage."

Japan (1945)
China (1945-46)
Korea & China (1950-53)
Guatemala (1954, 1960, 1967-69)
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959-61)
Congo (1964)
Peru (1965)
Laos (1964-70)
Vietnam (1961-1973)
Cambodia (1969-70)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983-84)
Libya (1986)
El Salvador (1980s)
Nicaragua (1980s)
Iran (1987)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991-2000)
Kuwait (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994-95)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998)
Pakistan (1998)
Yugoslavia (1999)
Bulgaria (1999)
Macedonia (1999)

1. How does any of this prove that I, personally, have no sense of morality, which was one of your claims? The mere fact that I felt pity for the giraffe ought to be sufficient refutation of your claim of "amorality," but go ahead and demonstrate that any of these US policies you've listed proves that I, personally, have no morals.
2. The term "dickhead" is a childish insult with no specific meaning and no place in a debate by adults unless you (a) tell me your specific meaning and (b) show that it applies to me.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon: I have nothing to do with the suppression of insurgency in the Philippines.
------

That right there proves that you are an amoral dickhead, but you have provided many more examples over the years.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Brandon: I have nothing to do with the suppression of insurgency in the Philippines.
------

That right there proves that you are an amoral dickhead, but you have provided many more examples over the years.

The fact that I had no relation to the suppression of the insurgency in the Philippines doesn't show that I am amoral, that is, have no capacity for morals. Dickhead remains childish name calling with no fixed meaning unless you choose to define it and prove that it applies to me. A vague reference to unspecified prior evidence doesn't prove it either. The fact is that you made a frivolous and untrue accusation because you thought you'd get away with it. Being repeatedly asked to support your claim, you cannot.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Amoral dickhead wrote: The fact that I had no relation to the suppression of the insurgency in the Philippines doesn't show that I am amoral,

M-W
Dickhead : a stupid or contemptible person

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Amoral dickhead wrote: The fact that I had no relation to the suppression of the insurgency in the Philippines doesn't show that I am amoral,

M-W
Dickhead : a stupid or contemptible person

So, you failed on the amoral part and are moving on to "dickhead." Okay, let's consider that:

1. Stupid
Please give a little evidence that I have low intelligence. I have two degrees in physics and am working as a software engineer, not commonly signs of low intelligence, but I await your evidence.
2. Contemptible
This is completely subjective, since anyone may have contempt for anyone.

Of course, the real situation is that you cruise through these forums making false accusations galore, secure in the knowledge that most members will never ask you to support your false statements. I'm asking. Demonstrate that I'm stupid, since you failed to demonstrate that I'm amoral.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon: Please give a little evidence that I have low intelligence. I have two degrees in physics and am working as a software engineer, not commonly signs of low intelligence, ... .

Two degrees in physics, that's very impressive, Brandon.

Perhaps you can explain how the USA was able to get 3 steel buildings designed to take a hit from a jet to fall, in a single day, into their footprints, when no other country has ever been able to complete this miracle before or since, not even with one building!

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Brandon: Please give a little evidence that I have low intelligence. I have two degrees in physics and am working as a software engineer, not commonly signs of low intelligence, ... .

Two degrees in physics, that's very impressive, Brandon.

Perhaps you can explain how the USA was able to get 3 steel buildings designed to take a hit from a jet to fall, in a single day, into their footprints, when no other country has ever been able to complete this miracle before or since, not even with one building!

So, you're avoiding demonstrating that I'm amoral or a dickhead because you can't. I win.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You are amoral because you support the biggest terrorist group on the planet, the USA. You support their slaughter of innocents, their theft of trillions of the wealth of others. You support ... .

You are a dickhead because you choose to remain ignorant and you feign ignorance of voluminous amounts of evidence which serves to illustrate just what an amoral dickhead you are.

Brandon: Please give a little evidence that I have low intelligence. I have two degrees in physics and am working as a software engineer, not commonly signs of low intelligence, ... .

Two degrees in physics, that's very impressive, Brandon.

Perhaps you can explain how the USA was able to get 3 steel buildings designed to take a hit from a jet to fall, in a single day, into their footprints, when no other country has ever been able to complete this miracle before or since, not even with one building!

0 Replies

Up to 5,000 healthy zoo animals – including hundreds of larger ones such as giraffes, lions and bears – are killed by zoos in Europe every year, it is claimed today.

Zoos in Europe ‘kill 5,000 healthy animals a year’

0 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

Lordyaswas wrote:

Seriously, I don't know enough about this specific case to state an opinion, but I know this sort of thing goes on with other animals in zoos all the time.
It was possibly an educational thing when they fed the lions in front of kids? The real world right in front of their eyes, rather than the disney cotton wool cosy world that is all nice and touchy feely, but innacurate.

Rats are fed to snakes, crickets to lizards, chicken beef and lamb to big cats. It just makes people uncomfortable when it is a giraffe. If they were on the serengeti, they would see newborn giraffes struggling for all their worth to get up immediately, otherwise the creatures of the night get it.

It would have been nice to see it farmed out somewhere else in the perfect world, but what would that have entailed? A solitary existence? Below par care?

I'm a bit split on this one.

I haven't found anything to top this response from the first page, though I'm not particularly "split" on it. I'm on the Circle of Life side.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

we make constant choices of what we allow our children to absorb and witness at various stages in their lives. I don't condemn Denmark for its practices of euthanasia an "crowd butchering" I just find it strange and hardly humane. As I said before, if one kid winds up with nightmares from his "hipster parents wanting them exposed to the reality of the Okavango" that's one too many. If you looked at the photo, what were a copule of 4 and 5 year olds gonna benefit?
Its certainly NOT a "circle of life" practice. Its a managed slaughter and butchery for somewhat suspect reasons.
In my mind it shows poor game management ,a really strange concern for the public and their children, and it demos really poor
hygiene and cleanliness concern for the meat.

Ive been in the business for almost 30 years now and the rules that we abide by are humane and forward looking compared to that "show"

I did not see any evidence of "Dissection" Instead, I saw haunches and cuts of giraffe being butchered out for feed.
So I really saw no "educational reason" being displayed. I could be wrong but all Ive got to go on is that picture and I think its not what it says it is.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmer: So I really saw no "educational reason" being displayed. I could be wrong but all Ive got to go on is that picture and I think its not what it says it is.
-----------

Farmerman the academic describes how he only had that ONE picture to go on (not all that bright, is he?) but he has made numerous assumptions, wildly speculated, lied about USA practices, attempted to besmirch the experts in Denmark and still he pretends to be an academic.

And ehBeth and others will let him go on without having to face the truth because they're afraid they'll get kicked out of the sandbox.

0 Replies

Cruel or the Circle of Life?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know